4 ms·

One asshole move in recent history back in Norway was that when the pilots were threatening to strike over long shifts or some such, the company spun up a subsi

One asshole move in recent history back in Norway was that when the pilots were threatening to strike over long shifts or some such, the company spun up a subsidiary, moved all the pilot employments to it, and leased foreign pilots to fly domestic routes. All under the pretext that this was not circumventing the strike, because the pilots were not working for them but for the newly created subsidiary.

eru 9y ago
This just shows that strikes aren't really a good tool in a dynamic economy where you can just spin up companies as necessary, and would need (increasingly complex) legislation to keep them relevant. The right political response should be to strengthen workers bargaining position---run the economy hot enough to turn the labour market into a sellers market, and keep enough social safety net that even just saying No without another job lined up would be feasible.
- alkonaut 9y ago
  And ensure that authorities are powerful enough to just make swift decisions about things like this. "Since this move accomplishes exactly the curcumvention of the strike, we consider the new company bound by the old company's agreements. Oblige by Monday or stop flying in Norway".
  - valuearb 9y ago
    Why can't the company just fire the strikers and directly hire replacements?
    - _acme 9y ago
      In the US, this is often possible (see the Air Traffic Controllers situation), but I think in many countries in Europe, it's not always legal.
      - coredog64 9y ago
        ATC was a different kettle of fish. As federal employees they were prohibited from striking, and the strike allegedly caused a public safety issue. If you break the law to strike, you get no protection. (Police and school teachers have similar requirements in their contracts and will use "sick-outs" to apply pressure without a full strike)
    - alkonaut 9y ago
      Where I live, and I assume in a lot of northern Europe, being on strike is not a valid reason to fire someone - if it's in the correct part of the contract cycle (the contract is 1,2 or 3 years and workers promise not to strike in return for the conditions in the contract). Strikes typically occur when the contract is up and a new one is being written. Second - a company that would cross the unions by hiring new workers would be blockaded. First by the union itself, but very soon by other unions. For example a restaurant that doesn't pay the correct wages might not be able to get deliveries of certain products, garbage won't be picked up etc. Outside the entrance customers are handed flyers that the restaurant is mistreating staff. All of this is regardless of whether the restaurant staff wants to be union members and regardless of whether they are happy with their contracts. And this is working very well actually - there is for example no need for minimum wages set by law. Strikes are rare, and "illegal/wild" strikes outside of contract periods are almost unheard of. Perhaps surprisingly, businesses are quite happy with this setup. Weaker unions would likely mean more unnecessary strikes, and definitely more regulation of things that are now covered by agreements.
    - eru 9y ago
      That's what I was getting at, yes. But as alkonaut was pointing out, the actual rules themselves don't matter as much to business as predictable and swift enforcement.

eru 9y ago

This just shows that strikes aren't really a good tool in a dynamic economy where you can just spin up companies as necessary, and would need (increasingly complex) legislation to keep them relevant. The right political response should be to strengthen workers bargaining position---run the economy hot enough to turn the labour market into a sellers market, and keep enough social safety net that even just saying No without another job lined up would be feasible.

alkonaut 9y ago
And ensure that authorities are powerful enough to just make swift decisions about things like this. "Since this move accomplishes exactly the curcumvention of the strike, we consider the new company bound by the old company's agreements. Oblige by Monday or stop flying in Norway".
- valuearb 9y ago
  Why can't the company just fire the strikers and directly hire replacements?
  - _acme 9y ago
    In the US, this is often possible (see the Air Traffic Controllers situation), but I think in many countries in Europe, it's not always legal.
    - coredog64 9y ago
      ATC was a different kettle of fish. As federal employees they were prohibited from striking, and the strike allegedly caused a public safety issue. If you break the law to strike, you get no protection. (Police and school teachers have similar requirements in their contracts and will use "sick-outs" to apply pressure without a full strike)
  - alkonaut 9y ago
    Where I live, and I assume in a lot of northern Europe, being on strike is not a valid reason to fire someone - if it's in the correct part of the contract cycle (the contract is 1,2 or 3 years and workers promise not to strike in return for the conditions in the contract). Strikes typically occur when the contract is up and a new one is being written. Second - a company that would cross the unions by hiring new workers would be blockaded. First by the union itself, but very soon by other unions. For example a restaurant that doesn't pay the correct wages might not be able to get deliveries of certain products, garbage won't be picked up etc. Outside the entrance customers are handed flyers that the restaurant is mistreating staff. All of this is regardless of whether the restaurant staff wants to be union members and regardless of whether they are happy with their contracts. And this is working very well actually - there is for example no need for minimum wages set by law. Strikes are rare, and "illegal/wild" strikes outside of contract periods are almost unheard of. Perhaps surprisingly, businesses are quite happy with this setup. Weaker unions would likely mean more unnecessary strikes, and definitely more regulation of things that are now covered by agreements.
  - eru 9y ago
    That's what I was getting at, yes. But as alkonaut was pointing out, the actual rules themselves don't matter as much to business as predictable and swift enforcement.